06 14 2004 PAC Agenda
, TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ,
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
",' ~MEETINGAGENDA- .
Robinson Room
Date: Monday June 14, 2004
Time: 7:00 pm
1.
2.
3.
Opening of Meeting by Chair
Adoption of Agenda
Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Natur~ Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
Minutes of Previous Meetings - April 19, 2004
Correspondence and Communication
4.
5.
a. Jim Woodford - An open letter to Planning Advisory Committee
members re: Georgian North Lands Ltd. submitted bye-mail April
27,2004
b. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Planning Reform-
Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools - June 2004
6.
Planning Applications
(a) 7:05 p.m/Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Re:
Lester Cooke - South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia), Application
P-159/03 '(CPA and ZBA) (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak
to the application subsequent to the review of the report)
(b) 7:15 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian
Planning Consultants Inc. Re: CRA Developments - West Part of Lot 26,
Concession 9 (Oro), Application 2004-0PA-03 and 2004-ZBA-04 (Applicant
to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the
review of the report)
(c) 7:25 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian
Planning Consultants Inc. Re: Judith Thatcher - Part of Lot 15, Concession
9 (Medonte), Application 2004-SUB-02 (Applicant to be afforded an
opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review of the
report)
(d) 7: 45 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian
Planning Consultants Inc. Re: Columbus, Boys Camp (Moon Point
Development Corp.) - Part of Lot 15 and 16, Concession 3 (Ormia) ,
Application 2004-0PA-02, 2004-ZBA-09, 2004-SUB-01 (Applicant to be
afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review
of the report)
7.
Other Business
a. Memorandum from Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. re: Proposed
Provincial Policy Statement Amendments (For Information Only)
b. Next Meeting - Monday July 12 at 7:00 p.m.
8.
Adjournment
,:'
,,:::'
..
'. '
...."
Lt - I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2003-2006 TERM
Monday, AprU19, 2004 @ 7:17 p.m.
Council Chambers
Present:
Mayor J. Neil Craig
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes
Councillor Dan Buttineau
Councillor Ralph Hough
Councillor Paul Marshall
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Robert Barlow
Mel Coutanche
Craig Drury
>.,
~'"
.""
,.\.
Regrets:
Terry Allison, John Miller
'.
Staff Present:
Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAG; Andria Leigh, Senior Plann~.r;..Nick
McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.; Janette Teeter,
Clerk's Assistant
Also Present:
Allan Baker, Dennis McKee, Joe Charles, Jim Woodford
1. Opening of Meeting by Mayor.
','( "
Mayor J. Neil Craig assumed the chair and called the meeting to order;
2. Adoption of Agenda.
A revised version of Report No. PO 2004-11, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning
Consultants Inc., re: Georgian North Lands Limited Property was distributed to the
Committee members. :'
Motion No. PAC-1
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Craig Drury
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, April 19, 2004 be received and adopted, as amended.
Carried.
~-2..
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
"
None declared.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - March 8, 2004.
Motion No. P AC-2
Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Mel Coutanche
It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Col'"l1.mittee Meeting held
on March 8, 2004 be received. "
Carried.
5. Correspondence and Communication.
a) Jim Woodford - Buffalo Springs Environmental Impact - A Statement to the
Planning Advisory Committee on Mar 8, 2004 and Letter to Council March 17,
2004.
Motion No. P AC-3
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Craig Drury
It is recommended that the correspondence dated March 8, 2004 and March 17,2004
from Jim Woodford re: Buffalo Springs / Georgian North Lands Ltd. be received.
Carried. '
b) Jarratt-Coulson & District Community Group Inc. - Letter re: Buffalo Springs
Revised Development Plan.
Motion No. P AC-4
Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Mel Coutanche
It is recommended that the correspondence dated April 2, 2004 from Allan Baker,
Executive Member, Jarratt-Coulson & District Community Group re: Buffalo
Springs/Georgian North Lands Ltd. Revised Development Plan be received.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - April 19, 2004
Page 2
i-~
6. Update on Existing Planning Applications - Memo from Andria Leigh, Senior
Planner dated March 31, 2004 - Status of Planning Applications. '
Motion No. P AC-5
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that the memorandum dated March 31, 2004 from Andria Leigh, Senior
Planner re: Status of Planning Applications for 2004 be received.
, Carried.
7. Planning Applications
"
\'
a) Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Re: Mark and Joanne
Scharf - Part of Lot 8, Concession 9, 51 R-28291, Part 1 (Oro), Application 2004-
ZBA-01.
Motion No. P AC-6
Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Mel Coutanche
It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-09, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner re: Zoning
By-Law Amendment for Mark and Joanne Scharf, Concession 9, South Part of Lot 8,51 R-
28291, Part 1 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted; and further that
the P1anning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that the Zoning By-law
Amendment for Mark and Joanne Scharf to rezone the lands described as South Part of Lot
8, Concession 9, 51 R-28291 , Part 1 (Oro) Township of Oro-Medonte, on Schedule A13 of
Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended from the Private Recreational Exception 117 l1olding
(PR*117(H)) Zone to the Agricultural/Rural Exception 154 (AIRU*154) Zone be adopted.
Carried. ,
b) Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.
Re: Georgian North Land Ltd. - Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9 (Oro), Application
2004-ZBA-02 and Redline Draft Plan of Subdivision (Applicant to be afforded an
opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report).
Motion No. PAC-7
Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Craig Drury
It is recommended that Revised Report No. PD 2004-11, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning
Consultants Inc., re: Georgian North Lands Limited Property be received and adopted.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - April 19. 2004
Page 3
'\-'1
8. Other Business.
Next Meeting - Monday May 10 at 7:00 p.m.
9. Adjournment.
Motion No. P AC-8
..
Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Robert Barlow
"
"
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 8:03 p;m.
,::,
\'
Carried.
Next Meeting - Monday, May 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
'.
" .
", '
". '
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Senior Planner, Andria Leigh
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - April 19. 2004
Page 4
So; - \
AN OPEN LETTER TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS "- TERRY ALLISON, ROBERT BARLOW, MEL COUTANCHE
AND CRAIG DRURY
Jim Woodford
Member, Coulson Area Environmental Committee
Friend of the Coulson Swamps
Georgian North Lands Ltd. has applied to Council for a By-law amendment to allow a
117 lot residential Plan of subdivision on the Buffalo Springs site. ,,\'
Georgian North has also applied directly to the Ontario Municipal Board to "Red-line"
, the draft approved plan of subdivision.
The Ontario Municipal Board has taken the position that it will not process the
application for a "Red'-line" revision until the TownshipofOro-Medonte provides formal
comments on both the re-zoning application and the "Red-line" request.
I highly commend Council for embracing an "Environment First" policy. At Monday's
Planning Advisory Committee meeting Nick MacDonald offered three options re Buffalo
Springs. I am suggesting two more that will allow Council an opportunity to put the
"Environment First" policy to the test.
I should like to bring to Council two main areas of concern about the proposed
development at Buffalo Springs.
'. '
1 - AL TERA TION OF EXISITNG ENVIRONMENT
On July 22, 1996, M. Stagg, RPF (acting for Oro-Medonte Township), Graham Findlay,
MNR Biologist (then chair ofthe Coulson Area Environmental Committee) and two local
residents visited the Buffalo Springs site, after a report that construction related activities
were occurring on the property.
Mr. Stagg, a Registered Professional Forester, in a letter to Mr. Findlay (copies to Benjt
Schumacher (owner of Buffalo Springs) and Mr. Kolbe, (Dir. OfO-M Planning) [copy of
Stagg letter is attached] observed:
"Recent logging in the westerly part of Lot 3 and stock piling, mostly maple, some
spruce. In a couple of instances the removal of several larger trees in one location had
created small open areas."
"It would appear that the trees that have been logged and those which have been marked,
have been specifically selected to optimize production of raw logs, a practice sometimes
I
'JC\-2
known in the lumbering industry as 'high yielding'. This could be viewed as something
different to a general woodland improvement operation...."
Mr. Stagg also noted: "If operations were to alter or remove a larger or significant part of
the referenced existing natural environment then it would become increasingly difficult to
implement the conditions ofthe OMB approval of the proposed residential subdivision."
"It would also be recognized that the existing forest and woodland characteristic was a
significant factor contributing to the rationale of creating the proposed country residential
estate development and hence its approval." ,
In a letter dated Sep. 3, 1996, Graham Findlay, MNR Biologist advised Mr. Schumacher
as follows: "The removal of a number of trees and the disturbance created by heavy,.
machinery required to remove the cut trees may impact on some of the sensitive arèas or
resource values." (Copy ofletter attached) ,
John Hare, who lives across the road from Buffalo Springs and accompanied Mr.Stagg
and Mr. Findlay on the inspection, estimates about 500 trees were removed. EdHall, who
lives next to the site, says some trees were cut down close to the Provincially Significant
Wetlands.
, .
Mr. Benjt Schumacher refused permission to the Couchiching Conservancy to survey
BuffaloSprings as part of their Oro Moraine Ecological Study.
A provision of the 1994 OMB Order that the Crown Tree Canopy not be altered appears
to have been violated. This could mean changes in the early spring flora that grows under
the trees before the canopy closes over.
". '
OMB Chair J. Mills was quite specific inhis concerns about the environment. In Section
IX ofthe OMB Order it prescribes the content ofthe Zoning By-law amendment in
Section 4 by adding subsections. The following is a sample: '
"11.2.2.2 Buffalo Springs, Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Cone. 9
a) Not withstanding the provisions of Section 11,2.1 of this By-law, those lands
comprised of Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Cone. 9 as zoned in Schedulef, Map 2 as
OS2-2 shall not be used for the erection of any building or alteration of the
existing environment.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that the activities detailed above probably caused
some "alteration of the existing environment".
In spite ofthe above Stantec Consulting Ltd., who did the 1994 Environmental
Assessment and should be familiar with the Buffalo Springs environment did not notice
that 500 trees had been removed.
2
l)~-)
Stantec now environmental consultants for the present owners, Georgian NorthLands,
visited the site once in December and claimed, "No significant changes in ecological
conditions have occurred on site." No scientific data was provided to validate this claim.
Azimuth Consulting Ltd. was asked by Council to review the Stantec Report. They did
not challenge the claim of "no significant changes in ecological conditions". Nor did they
mention the removal of 500 trees.
Both seemed unaware of Chainnan Mills's specific order that there was to be no
"alteration of the existing environment" at Buffalo Springs.
"
"
"
Therefore I respectfully suggest that Oro-Medonte Council undertake the
following:
\,:(:<
1- Request Georgian North Lands Ltd. to conduct a 3-season environmental
assessment of Buffalo Springs [Part lot 2 and Lot 3, Cone. 9]. A multi-disciplinary
team of highly qualified scientists - including a botanist, forester, ornithologist,
ichthyologist and entomologist - should do this. The purpose of this assessment is tó
determine if "any alteration of the existing environment" has occurred.
, ,
, ,
I would further suggest that Stantec and Azimuth should be disqualified from doing this
assessment.
2 - Inform the OMB that Council will not comment on the re-zoning application
and the "Red-line" request until after the above is completed and the Council has a
Report. ,..' "
3 - I suggest that Council appoint an Ecological Advisory Committee to assist and
advise Council.
An Ecological Advisory Committee would give Council expert advice on the ecology and
natural history ofthe Township. It would give invaluable advice on the assessment and
verification of Environmental Impact Statements.
Some of the best naturalists in Ontario live in or near Oro-Medonte. The Committ~e I
envisage would operate in a similar manner to the Planning Advisory Committee and
would be a model for all Ontario.
2 - PROVINCIAL WETLANDS POLICY
In 1992 the Ontario Government enacted a Policy Statement on Wetlands under Section 3
of the Planning Act 1983.
"It is the policy of the Government of Ontario that:
3
1.1. "All planning jurisdictions, planning boards and resource management bodies within
the Province shall protect Provincially Significant Wetlands.
2. Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region
2.1 Development shall not be pennitted within Provincially Significant Wetlands.
The. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines within as inside.
Map 7 in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Ecological Services for
Planning for the 1994 OMB Hearing clearly shows that one group ófhouses is on an
"island" completely surrounded by the Provincially Significant Wetlands. (The
revised plan shows 15 houses on this "island".) [Copy of map attached}
Two other "peninsulas" are largely within the Provincially Significant Wetlands and
contain 30 houses.
Sec. 2.2 reads "On Adjacent Lands, Development may be pennitted only if it does not
result in any of the following:
a) Loss of Wetland Functions.
b) Loss of contiguous Wetland Area."
Once again Map 7 shows roads across the Coulson creek (a coldwater trout stream) and
ac~oss the wetlands, virtually dividing them into three sections.
This has a high potential to disrupt wetland functions and certainly destroys a contiguous
wetland area.
The Revised Plan maintains the basic configuration of houses as shown on Map 7, but
fewer are planned. A wide path will replace one branch road and a short section of road
has been eliminated. The wide path will still be across wetlands and built to
accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles.
[A copy of the Provincial Wetlands Policy is attached]
Council should seek clarification of the Chairman Mills Order with respect to
Provincial Wetlands Policy.
Summing Up -
If the Environmental Assessment described on page 2 finds that the logging
"operations were to alter or remove a larger or significant part of the referenced
existing natural environment" then some "alteration of the existing environment"
occurred and the conditions of the 1994 OMB Order would have been violated and
it would no longer apply to development at Buffalo Springs.
4
.
Council should ask Georgian North Lands Ltd. to submit a newplan thatwould be
considered under current by-laws and relevant legislation.
This would include a 120-metre buffer around EP-llands, such as the East Coulson
Provincially Significant Wetlands.
It would prohibit building any houses or roads within these wetlands.
Who knows if this is delayed long enough even OPA #16 might be law!
Mr. Massie and partners there is a simple solution to this. Donate the East Coulson
Provincially Significant Wetlands to the Couchiching Conservancy.
This would make economic sense - you would receive a tax receipt for the assessed
value of the donated lands; it would make emotional sense - you would receive an
enormous amount of goodwill and praise in the community; and finally it would
make environmental sense - one of the most important natural areas in Oro-
Medonte would be preserved.
;).. -
5
Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Ministre des Affaires municipales
et du Logement
---íJ.~~
~.
M~
f{f e.....-
~
Ontario ,
ç
,.I
¡
~ \
Minister Responsible for Seniors
Ministredélégué aux Affaires des personnes âgées
m Bay Street
TorontoON MSG2E5
Tel. (416) 585-7000
Fax (416) 585-6470
VoNM'.mah.gov.on.ca
777, rue Bay
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
TéI. (416) 585-7000
Télec. (416) 585-6470
www.mah.gov.on.ca
RECEIVED
JUN J iOO' '
ORO-MeOONìE
TOWNSHIP
June 1, 2004
Dear Head of Council:
f'
Please fmd attached an infonnation package containing three consultation discussion d~uments
and questionnaires regarding key aspects of Ontario's land-use planning system. We are taking
the next step towards proposed refonns to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and the land-
use planning system that would shape how Ontario's communities grow and prosper.
As a first step, the government has proposed refonns to the Planning Act through Bi1l26, tHe
proposed Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004, which would bring more
accountability, transparency and public input to the way land-use planning decisions ~rè made.
The consultation paper on proposedrefonns to the Planning Act asks for your comments not
only on Bill 26 but also on other changes to make the Planning Act more effective, and on
implementation tools to facilitate better planning.
Included in the infonnation package for your comments is the draft revised Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS), the government's statement of its priorities for land-use planning and,'
development under the Planning Act. The Planning Act requires a review of the PPS every five
years to ensure its effectiveness in addressing issues of provincial interest such as gridlock,
sprawl, preserving greenspace, protecting the environment and promoting a vibrant economy. I
believe the draft policies support our commitment to a higher quality of life for all Ontarians. I
want your perspectives on whether the draft policies achieve those goals.
Your input will also be valuable to the government as it considers the need for refonns of the
ÜMB and its role in the land-use planning system. The consultation paper provides background
infonnation, identifies issues for your consideration and includes a series of questions designed to
obtain your ideas and perspectives on the need for refonn.
12
5~-L
-2-
We need your comments by August 31, 2004 as we work on a timetable for changes to land-use'
planning in Ontario that would manage growth, ensure sustainable development, protect the
environment and build strong communities.
A series ofpub1ic infonnation sessions is also planned across the province. Please find attached
several copies of the infonnation package that you may wish to share with appropriate staff and
members of the public.
For additional infonnation, visit our consultation website www.planningrefonn.ontario~~a or call
the tol1-free line 1-866-751-8082. In Toronto, can 416-645-8082. ' "
Fonowing consultation, we wi]] be moving forward to address the comments and views you have
provìded.
Please join us as we take action to deliver the real, positive change that wi]] make Ontario strong,
healthy and prosperous. ' ,
Sincerely,
~ ~~~ 'G~
UD~~O ~
~tß-- ~ \ ~ \ d-Ó ~. '-\
n .! : .;¡IJI~^ fl. .... G-
~ ~ u..ruuc ~ aJ....L
}JU r ~ .Ó'f'.- ~ <>-( tD--
~~~'
~~
.I'
John Gerretsen
Minister
Attachments
cc.Q~<4 t\)~~
b~ -I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD2004-28 Planning Advisory Andria Leigh, RPP
Committee \
Subject: Department:
Council Planning
Lester Cooke,
C. of W. Development Application Date: June 8, 2004
P-159/03
Motion # Concession 3, South Part R.M. File #:
of Lot 17 (Orillia) D09 013294
Date: Roll #:
030-011-43100-0000
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to review applications submitted by Lester Cooke for Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments on lands located within South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia). The
applicant is proposing to create three lots by consent fronting on Moon Point Drive. Each of the
proposed lots would have a lot frontage of 45.72 metres (150 feet), a lot area of 0.61 hectares (1.p1
acres), and would be serviced by a private well and septic system.
The land area of, the proposed lots is cleared of vegetation and has been recently filled which
elevates this portion of the property from the neighbouring properties and from the remainder of the
subject property to the north. The subject property slopes downward in a northerly direction to an
area that is wooded and extremely wet and also has an identified watercourse as shown on the
schedules to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. This area provides drainage for the property to the
west and for the subject property and drains in an easterly direction with a culvert under Moon Point
Drive and an outlet to Lake Simcoe.
The lands to the south and east along Moon Point Drive are developed with approximately 26
residential lots. Lands located to the north and west of the subject property are currently used for
agricultural purposes and are cleared.
At the present time, the lands are designated Restricted Rural in the Township's Official Plan and
zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The policies of the Restricted
Rural designation do not permit the creation of new lots by severance on the property and as a result,
a change to the Official Plan designation is required. The intent of the Zoning By-law change is to
implement the changes to be made to the Official Plan and to recognize the larger lot frontages and
lot areas.
bo, - 2-
No additional information or technical studies were submitted in support of this application.
NAL YSIS:
Conformity with the Oro-Medonte Official Plan
The proposed development, if approved, would not conform to Section D10.3.8 of the current Official
Plan (Limits of Shoreline Development.) This section of the Official Plan states;
It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be ' ,
directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to " "
maintain this area's unique character.. .Any Amendment to this Rlan that has
the effect of permitting additional residential development adjacent to the
Shoreline designation will only be considered as part of a review of thfJ:' .,:'
appropriateness of the extent and limits of the entire Shoreline designation that
is carried out as part of an Official Plan review.
The existing policy regarding shoreline development is very restrictive, as it does not permit any
development outside of the Shoreline designation without a review of the entire Shoreline designation
carried out as part of an Official Plan Review (OPA).
, " .
OPA #17 which was adopted by Council on August 21, 2003, proposes to change this policy
regarding development in shoreline areas to read as follows:
It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be
directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to
maintain this area's unique character. In order to implement this intent. new
residential development in the Shoreline desiGnation will be limited to small-
scale subdivisions. on the shoreline or minor infillinG bY consent to sever:"'"
Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of permittinG additional residential
development adiacent to the Shoreline desiGnation will be discouraGed. If such
an application is submitted. the appropriateness of. the immediate area for
development from an environmental. servicinG. character and traffIc
perspective shall be assessed. If maior development is proposed. a detailed
review of the entire shoreline area shall be carried out to determine if the
proposed location is suitable and appropriate from a Growth manaGement
perspective.
This policy in the Official Plan was revised by OPA #17 and the underlined portion noted above would
allow limited development in the shoreline area without the need for a review of the entire Shoreline
designation. However, the proposed policy does indicate that a number of issues have to be
reviewed to determine the suitability of a re-designation including: environmental suitability, servicing
feasibility, impact on character and traffic impacts. These policies are consistent with the criteria
currently contained in Section D10.3.6 as discussed below.
While OPA #17 was adopted by Council on August 21,2003; it has not received final approval by the
County of Simcoe which is required before these policies are in force and effect and before final
consideration can be given to amend the Official Plan in accordance with these new policies. It is
anticipated that this approval may be received late this summer; however the Decision of the County
may be the subject of appeals to all or portions of the Amendment.
- 2-
(,:) 0, ~ ~ .
In the current Official Plan, Section D10.3.6 contains the following criteria for the consideration of new
residential plans of subdivision:
Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of Subdivision that contains
lots that have direct access to and frontage on either Lake Simcoe or Bass
Lake, Council shall be sàtisfied that:
(a)
The proposed Plan of Subdivision is of scale and density that is
compatible with existing development in the area;
(b)
The proposed form of servicing is appropriate and agreed to by the
Township and the appropriate agencies;
(c)
Measures to preserve the integrity of the shoreline and the tree cover "
on the site are included within the Subdivision Agreement and the
implementing Zoning By-law; and,
\:'
(d)
Parkland areas are sited at appropriate location to provide access to the
shoreline. These parkland areas should be sited adjacent to existing
road allowances leading to the lake.
While it should be noted that the above policy applies to Plan of Subdivision applicatio,ns; these
policies should also be considered in the review of applications for Official Plan Amendment that
propose shoreline development through an OPA process.
With respect to (a) above, the lots proposed are larger than the existing developed area along Moon
Point Drive and their location would be compatible with the existing development, particularly as Moon
Point Drive is a a fully developed shoreline residential area. In terms of (b) above, given that only
three lot are proposed and the large size of the lots, the only appropriate means of servicing is by
private wells and septic system. With respect to (c) above, it is recommended that an Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) be completed, since a portion of the lands are wooded and there is an identified
watercourse running through the property. The EIS wm also make recommendations on slope
stability given the amount of filling which has occurred on the property and the minimum setback
required from the watercourse. Lastly, in regard to (d), it is noted that the intent of this policy is to
discourage development in the shoreline area where residents will not have access to the Lake;
however the policy does not preclude development from occurring. It should be noted that there are
currently road allowances to the lake that would offer new residents access to Lake Simcoe.
On the basis of the comments above, it is my opinion that the proposed development is in conformity
with the above criteria. '
Section F1 contains the policies which identify the areas contained within the Environmental
Protection Two Overlay designation in the Official Plan. While it is noted that the subject property
does not contain this overlay designation there are policies which continue to be relevant to the
subject property. Section F1.2 contains the following policies:
It is recognized that the rivers and streams in the Township are important
components of the Township's natural heritage system. Although these
watercourses are not within the Environmental Protection Two designation, they are
considered to be environmentally significant and they are dealt with specifically in
Section G 1 of this Plan.
- 3-
f",n U
'.;,.j "-", - I
The intent of the Plan is to protect watercourses from incompatible development and to minimize the
impacts of development on the function of the watercourse. As indicated above, the subject property
does contain a watercourse that runs from west to east through the entire property and is therefore
considered environmentally significant in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan.
It is noted in the Official Plan that development which requires either an Official Plan Amendment or '
amendment to the Zoning By-law mayalso be subject to the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Study (EIS). Given the environmental sensitivity of this watercourse and the fming that has occurred
on site, it is recommended that an EIS be completed for the proposed development.
Conformity with the Oro-Medonte Zonina By-law
The Shoreline Residential Zone requires minimum lot frontages of 30 metres and minimum lot areas
of 0.2 hectares. The three proposed lots to be created by consent would comply with 'both of these
zoning by-law provisions.
The Zoning By-law also contains general provisions which would affect the subject property and are
provisions which are required to satisfy the policies contained in the Official Plan for the protection of
all significant rivers and streams from development that may have an impact on their function as an
important component of the natural heritage system. '
Section 5.33 - Setback from Water Courses that are not in Environmental Protection Zone contains
provisions which may have an impact on this proposal and would be required to be considered during
the completion of the EIS. Section 5.33 indicates:
"Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, no building or structure shall be located within 30
metres (98.4 feet) of the top of bank of any watercourse, with the exception of Lake Simcoe or Bass
Lake which are dealt with by Section 5.28. "
As part 'of the EIS, identification of the top of bank is required and the appropriate setback from that
top of bank for development should also be determined to ensure that sufficient area is available to
permit construction on the proposed lots. " '
I OPTIONS:
..1
On the basis of the analysis provided above, the Planning Advisory Committee has four options:
Option 1 - Proceed to a Public Meeting
If this option was selected, the applications would be further processed and a public meeting
scheduled under The Planning Act. The intent of the public meeting would be to obtain comments
from the public and the agencies.
Option 2 - Require More Information
If this option were selected, additional information would be requested of the applicant before a public
meeting would be scheduled. In this case, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) would be required.
Once this information was submitted, a further report to Planning Advisory Committee would be
prepared and a determination would be made in that report whether a public meeting would be held,
or whether further information was required.
- 4-
(:) .Q¡" -
Option 3 - Proceed to Public Meeting after Additional Information is Submitted
If this option was selected, the applicant would be required to provide the EISand once the report
was deemed to be satisfactory by staff, the public meeting required under the Planning Act would
then be scheduled. '
Option 4 - Refuse the Applicatio~
If this option was selected, the, application would be refused and the applicant would then have the
ability to appeal that refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
, 'I'
CONCLUSIONS:
It is my opinion that the proposal generally satisfies the intent of the Official Plan, as amended. by
OPA#17 as discussed above. However, there is a need to further assess the impacts of the proposal
on the environment as required by the policies of the Official Plan and therefore the completion of an
EIS is required. Any recommendations emanating from the EIS would be implemented through the
proposed amendments and may require the proposed consent lots to be subject to Site Plan Control
in order to implement the recommendations. However this information would be reviewed by the
Committee after the Public Meeting at the time of consideration of the proposed amendments and
therefore should' not delay the scheduling of the Public Meeting. On this basis, it is recommended
that Option 3 be selected and that the applicant be requested to prepare the EIS; ançJ further that
once this is deemed to be satisfactory by Township staff, that the formal public mee}lng under The
Planning Act be scheduled.
IONS:
It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee:
'~, ..
.
receive and adopt this report; and,
recommend to Council that Development Application P-159/03 for Official PÌ'an and Zoning, By-
law Amendments submitted by Lester Cooke proceed to a public meeting under The Planning
Act, once an Environment Impact Study (EIS) has been completed and is determined to be
satisfactory by staff.
.
Respectfully Submitted,
. --1 ~ -t...-P '
Andria Leigh, MCr-Þ, RPP
Senior Planner
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
- 5-
~rfr) IQt1CJ(
II 'NO:7
-(Y/aele..wooc< ftwV
,/
,.. III ""'O~
,..
'>
~
"
. . R ..s::.r-
~ ;;; ~e &
SH Î
..J.. c;.,
t :; :T~ -
r i i: (b I
[ill s~~ ~
(\
s:> P <>
<I' ~ =-
~ ! ~ ~'L'- ....
~ n~ 9.>~l
J:.~~
. Ib
y.,v'
I --'1{
¡þ~¡
I~~!
I~ i';
~ ~ i
~-o 0
~ F-
3§"Ï
8)Z-Q
:::> '¡.L- d
-:i AJ 76
, :7\ 4
b &:L.C:
""")Cl.!.: ,
/ c::' 'J¡
/~~
g;)f
?
QJ 3~
(¡¡g~
~'~
Q
~~,¡.! ...
!. I'tot
:. ~ 1 ~ }: ~ .U
<:11'1 ~¡ ~r¡:~
~ f¡,~~ . ? 't-JJn
..! I. ~ t 1;1 ~
.. i ¡ I,;¡ {,}IO('
~ hJt 1. ~!lh
~ f.tj- ~ ~t.t~>
~ !<ll, . ! . 'I . ,-
j ¡ t I.. ", :-;
~!tÌ'~.¡ , i.~~t""
~ 1'1., 'r ~ ~.. I
1 I ~ Ï"t, I" \, 'i , L.
' "':.. t ' I., II
' ~r . , .. " .
'..... ". ~ Î"':';
r-Hh '~ " i ~ ~~r
'-j' '" " \) I, . 'ì 14'
~1¡ I'i.!>! ~i. ~~
¡,H d ' ~ ~'" ;::,~ ¡.~,
'.¡~ ";' ql\,
~ t¡ t- ~, ~.b ;.~
¡"ij~'I!l) '¡",19:'
oQ,"¡,~ ¡~': ,~;,~.
d': r '~' 11'I,;
".~ .. ¡. , !' " .
~~. ¡,. t co "
~~~ I ,
');11 "
¡.
~
~
F r
b~-b
J
~
":-'
. -~, "-..
~
~~
~>
c,Ct¡ ~z
^ 0 ~ ""
~C~~O
<: -1 " " ""'1
.:t~~
~cq~U1
,0 ..,., ~ .....
" -v ~ " , 0"'0....;
. - , 'I
"< r- , ,
'ì'r-~~e-.
~5: <'\ <
' !2-.
"'ìJl
~ ......
""0
~
G ~ - J-
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
Committee
PD2004-27 Nick McDonald, RPP
Subject: Applications for Department:
Council Official Plan and Zoning By- Planning ".:<
Law Amendment - CRA
C. of W. Developments Ltd - Date: June 9, 2004
2004-0PA-O3 and 2004-ZBA-04
Motion # R.M. File #:
D14 013469
Date: Roll #: 1-9-68900
ROUND:
The purpose of this report is to. assess applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applying
to lands within Part of Lot 26, Concession 9 (Oro) owned by Mr. Tim Crawford of CRA Developments Ltd. The
applicant wishes to develop 7 lots by consent on Springhome Road. Five of the proposed lots would have a
lot area of 1.19 ha. (2.9 ac.) and the remaining two lots would have an area of 0.53 ha. (1.3 ac.). The lots
would have frontages of between 48 metres (157 feet) and 57 metres (187 feet). Each of the lots would be
serviced by a private well and septic system. A sketch prepared by the applicant is attached to this report.
The area of the proposed lots is treed and slopes to the south towards a small creek that runs in an east-west
direction through the southern portion of the five westerly lots. This creek drains a large area extending the
west of the property to Ridge Road. A number of small intermittent creeks flow into the larger creek on the
property. Lands located to the north, across Springhome Road, are developed with 7 lots in Plan 1642.
Lands located to the east, along Memorial Crescent and Indian Road are also developed. Lands to the west,
west of the 8th Line South are vacant. Lands to the south, across the creek, are also developed with
residential lots.
At the present time, the lands are designated Rural and Environmental Protectio.n Two. in accordance with the
approved Official Plan and zoned Agricultural/Rural by By-law 97-95. The policies of the Rural designation do
not permit the creation of new lots by severance on the property and as a result, a change to the Official Plan
designation is required. The intent of the Zoning By-law change is to implement the changes to be made to the
Official Plan.
It should be noted that no supporting information was submitted along with the application. However, the
applicant has provided the Township with the following:
.
Development Feasibility Study - Skelton, Brumwell & Associates - January 1987
.
/'
b
-2..
.
Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation - Ian D. Wilson Associates Limited - September 1989
Planning Brief - Skelton, Brumwell & Associates - February 1998
.
I HISTORY OF PROPERTY:
I
The property has been under application for development since the late 1980's and was also dealt with in the
context of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in 1998. In the late 1980's, Mr. Crawford submitted applications
for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision to permit a 20 Lot Plan of
Subdivision on the property. For a variety of reasons, the processing of this application was never completed
and the lands were never designated for that purpose. However, Mr. Crawford appealed the Township's new
Comprehensive Zoning By-law in 1997 and was added as a party to the appeal of the new Official Plan, which
was also under appeal by a number of other parties.
In 1998, the appeal of both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law was resolved as it related to the Crawford
property and it was agreed to designate and zone certain lands on the subject property to facilitate the
creation of seven lots by consent on Memorial Road and Lakeshore Road. In April 1998, the OMB supported
the settlement. Following the settlement of the appeal, Mr. Crawford did submit applications for consent and
seven new lots were created through that process.
~ POLICY CONTEXT:
I
The proposed development, if approved, would not conform to Section D10.3.8 of the current Official, Plan
(Limits of Shoreline Development.) This section of the Official Plan states;
It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be directed to
lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to maintain this area's
unique character. ..AnyAmendment to this Plan that has the effect of permitting
additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will only be
considered as part of a review of the appropriateness of the extent and limits of the
entire Shoreline designation that is carried out as part of an Official Plan review.
The existing policy regarding shoreline development is very restrictive, as it does not permit any development
outside of the Shoreline designation without a review of the entire Shoreline designation as part of an Official
Plan Review.
OPA #17 proposes to change the above policy regarding development in shoreline areas to read as follows.
It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be directed to
lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to maintain this area's
unique character. In order to implement this intent, new residential development in the
Shoreline designation will be limited to small-scale subdivisions on the shoreline or
minor infilling by consent to sever. Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of
permitting additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will
be discouraged. If such an application is submitted, the appropriateness of the
immediate area for development from an environmental, servicing, character and traffic
perspective shall be assessed. If major development is proposed, a detailed review of
the entire shoreline area shall be carried out to determine if the proposed location is
suitable and appropriate from a growth management perspective.
The policy in the Official Plan was slightly revised by OPA #17, because there are logical locations for
additional small-scale development in the shoreline area, particularly in areas that abut existing shoreline
development on the other side of a public road or which back onto already developed areas on two sides.
- 2-
- :) &
However, the proposed policy also stresses that a number of issues have to be reviewed to determine the
suitability of are-designation.
Section 010.3.6 of the Official Plan also contains the following criteria:
Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of Subdivision that contains lots that
have direct access to and frontage on either Lake Simcoe or Bass Lake, Council shall
be satisfied that:
(a)
The proposed Plan of Subdivision is of scale and density that is compatible with
existing development in the area;
(b)
The proposed form of servicing is appropriate and agreed to by the Townshìp
and the appropriate agencies; t.
(c)
Measures to preserve the integrity of the shoreline and the tree cover on the ~.ite
are included within the Subdivision Agreement and the implementing Zoning1"By- ,
~~~~ '
(d)
Parkland areas are sited at appropriate location to provide access to the
shoreline. These parkland areas should be sited adjacent to existing road
allowances leading to the lake.
It is noted that the above policy applies to Plan of Subdivision applications. However, it is our opinion that the
policy should be considered in the review of applications for Official Plan Amendment that" propose shoreline
development. '
With respect to (a) above, it is our opinion that the large lots and their location is generally compatible with the
scale and density of existing development, particularly across Springhome Road, where seven lots are also
located. In terms of (b) above, the Official Plan requires that all servicing options be reviewed when
applications to develop more than 5 new lots are proposed. In this case, given the small size of the
development, its location and size of the lots, the only appropriate means of servicing is b~' private wells and
septic systems. With respect to (c) above, it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be
completed, since the lands are wooded, within the Environmental Protection Two designation and located near
a watercourse. The EIS will also make recommendations on tree retention and the minimum setback required
from the watercourse. Lastly, in regard to (d), it is noted that Memorial Park is located nearby and its location
wm offer new residents an access to the lake.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
As noted above, seven new lots have been created from the parcel since 1997. In addition, there are a
number of other lots in the area, all serviced by private wells and septic systems. On this basis, it is. our
opinion that there is a need to assess the impacts of additional lot creation on this property on water supplies
in the area. The comments of a hydrogeologist will therefore be required to support the application.
It is noted that the applicant has submitted a hydrogeologic assessment dated 1989. However, a more up-to-
date assessment will be required, since development standards have changed significantly since that time.
- 3-
Gb-Lt
PTIONS:
On the basis of the above, Planning Advisory Committee has four options:
Option 1 - Proceed to a Public Meeting
If this option was selected, the applièations would be further processed and a public meeting scheduled under
The Planning Act. The intent of the public meeting would be to obtain comments from the public and the
agencies.
Option 2 - Require More Information
If this option were selected, additional information would be requested of the applicantbefo~e a public meeting
would be scheduled. In this case, both an EIS and an updated hydrogeological assessment would be required.
Once this information was submitted, a further report to Planning Advisory Committee would be prepared and
a determination would be made in that report whether a public meeting would be held, or whether further
information is required. '
Option 3 - Proceed to Public Meeting, Provided Additional Information is Submitted
If this option is selected, the applicant would be required to provide the EIS and hydrogeological assessment
and once the reports are deemed to be satisfactory by staff, staff would then schedule a public meeting under
The Planning Act.
Option 4 - Refuse the Application
If this option' was selected, the application would be refused and the applicant would then have the ability to
appeal that refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board., '
CONCLUSIONS:
It is our opinion that the proposal is small in scale and generally satisfies the intent of the Official Plan, as
amended by OPA#17. However, there is a need to further assess the impacts of the proposal on the
environment and adjacent water supplies. On this basis, an EIS and a hydrogeological assessment are
required.
Given the nature of the proposal, the number of lots proposed and its location, it is recommended that Option
3 be selected and that the applicant be requested to prepare the EIS and hydrogeological assessment and
once they are deemed to be satisfactory by staff, that a formal public meeting under The Planning Act be
scheduled. It is our opinion that a staff review only of the materials to be provided is sufficient at this time.
PAC will have an opportunity to review these reports prior to the preparation of any additional reports on the
application.
- 4-
\ ~~}
'J .!I
OMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee:
.
receive and adopt this report; and,
recommend to Council that Applications 2004-0PA-03 and 2004-ZBA-04 submitted by CRA
Developments proceed to a public meeting under The Planning Act, once an EIS and hydrogeological
assessment has been completed and is deemed to be satisfactory by staff.
.
Respectfully Submitted,
,-4....,L ~
Nick McDonald, Mb~ RPP
Partner
\;~'
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
.. "
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
",'
- 5 -
bb-b
SKETCH FOR SEVERENCE
OF PART OF THE
WEST PART OF LOT 26
CONCESSION 9
GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF ORO
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
SCALE 1: 2000
-. .....
~
RAIKES SURVEYING LTD.
~; ~ I LOT 19 .'; .tOT. 18 I LO~71 LOT 16 IL~ 15 I L~ 14; LOb';' ¡ LOT 12 ¡ ¡
IðI I ~ I ¡:g¡ I 'I [8J I Rtã$TERFn I P~ I I2SI 164k ~ \ \ I
----1..:1 I. I r 1 I III 1
I L --_-!_---_.L_--_...!_____'L___~....!- I I I I
I co, ., ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE Brn+ŒN LOTS i'5 - AÑÕ - 26~':='::¡K';;;;"'- ~ ~ ~RÕÃD) - - -
l_- N59'S'5O'E REFERENCE BEARING '" ..~
I !II 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 50.93 57.00 .. --...,---------
:~§ i ~: ~
~')II ....
1 ~ on "C) I ()
: § ~ ~ "~~J_~--~----
I , 8 .... MEMORIAL CR€SŒNT
~ § r-~--~-----
131 ' .
1 1
120.12 L-'___--,:",,-";"-
1 INDIAN ROAD
-----------~¡r----------
,I .. I
'! . PART 4 ¡:g I' ~ 1
~~ '\ ~ I
~ ':::::=~-------¡! :
s; -, PART 5 I i! I
'1:Ii I
;! \ !'VI I I
PART 6 \ LC:>.I I I ,
~ \ I 1..---------
~,~ \ ¡ ,.l.AKESHORE ROAD
n'J ,
;~---,------\" í----~-~--
) \ LÔr;?l42 , '
'- IoC::.I I I
-- ---1 \
, I
I 1
" I \
'_:"'4 \
---- , \
!" Ie:¡ I
\ I ~ I
\ I I):: '-
\ ,GR.--
I ' ...~.!:!¡¡¡,;;-¡;---
1 I , ...(~~ ~~-~-?:~-
\ I ~..;I -.....-~~~.......T
I '\ "'I -~.!..~)
1 I ~I ' --
1 I ~
\ I'
I I 4:~\
, I~I
\ ' :t: ,
\ ,I ~ I
1 \ ~ I
I I"'" \
\ \
, '
I \
I
M£1RIC
,1118
J!II
DISTANCES SHOWN ON '!HIS
PLAN ARE IN MElRES AND
CAN BE CON'lERTED TO
FEET BY DIVIDING BY.O.3048.
~ !~
~ PART 1 PART 2 PART;' PART 4
I: ~
~ :!
~ :~.
:~'
,
:~
II)::
I
:~ I
I~ I
I @5 I
I I
I "" I
: ~ I
I ~ I
I 5 I
I ~ I
II
I I
\ I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I '--"1
I I ------"'- I
I L----- I
: : l~fTRr£: A~~~~D~g5 ~I :
I I TUE SURVEYOR':> I ----
I I SKTTCH BY I ---------
¡TIM CRAWFO~D' I
NDT ID ..5L.ALE"'. I _.:--
1..-'----
PART
2
PART:5 ¡:g
~
6
~¡
48.00
48.00
N59'09'OO"E
48.00
48.23
4-
.¡;
#if
J:&
.j-
'{V
PA':?T
0-"--11'-'
RAIKES
SUR VEYING
LTD.
DRAWN BY: R.J.H.
Ontario Land Surveyors cI BoUlJdary Consultants
25 Berczy Street, P.O.Box 1150, Barrie Ontario, 14M 5E2
Telephone (705) 728-8863 Fax (705) 728-8898
E-Mail Address surveysCraikessurveying.com
CHK'D BY: P.T.R.
PROJECT 6706SK
6e. - I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
Committee "
PD2004-29 Nick McDonald, RPP
.
Subject: Department: \'
Council Planning
Application for Plan of
C. of W. Subdivision, Date: June 9, 2004
Part of Lot 15, Concession 9
Motion # (Medonte), R.M. File #:
2004-SUB-02 D12 013694 ' '
Date: Roll #: 020-005-11601
I BACKGROUND:
I
The purpose of this report is to assess an application for a Plan of Subdivision submitted by Mr. and Mrs.
Thatcher. The application applies to lands on the south side of Moonstone Road within the Moonstone
Settlement Area and within Lot 15, Concession 9 (former Township of Medonte). A copy of the proposed
plan is attached to this report.
The application for Plan of Subdivision was submitted by the applicant since the Township refused to pass
a Zoning By-law that would provide for the creation of 9 lots by consent on the property. It was the position
of the municipality at the time that a more compact form of development that is accessed by internal roads
is much more appropriate in a settlement area.
The refusal of the zoning application was the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on February 9,
2004. At that hearing, both the Township and the applicant agreed to adjourn the hearing until the applicant
could determine and work on a number of other development options for the property. The application that
is the subject of this report represents the result of those further considerations.
The Ontario Municipal Board has set aside two additional days in July (July 6 and 7) to deal with the refusal
of the Zoning By-law. Given the timing of submission of the Plan of Subdivision application and the time it
takes to review and circulate the application, it will not be possible to proceed with the hearing in July. On
this basis, a further adjournment will be needed, so that the Plan of Subdivision application can be
appropriately dealt with through a Planning Act process.
b( -2
OF PROPOSAL:
It is proposed to develop 22 lots on the property. The proposed lot sizes range in size from approximately
1,641 sq. metres (17,670 sq. ft) to over 2,000 sq;metres (21,528 sq. ft). The proposed lot frontages range
from 19 metres(62 ft) to 30 metres (98 ft). The Township's Zoning By-law requires that all new lots within
settlement areas have a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres and a minimum lot area of 2,000 sq. metres.
Each of the lots wm be accessed by an internal road that intersects with Moonstone Road (County Road 19)
on the eastern side of the property. Each of the proposed lots wm also be serviced by, private septic
systems and are proposed to be connected to the existing municipal water supply system.
0'"
With respect to sewage disposal, a report prepared by Terraprobe in March of 1997 in support of a
previous application provides some information on the capability of the site to support the,.,establishment of
private septic systems. The report indicates that there is between 250 to 240 millimetres"of topsoil on the
site, which is underlain by silty sand that extends to a depth of up to 1 metre below the existing ground
surface. Sand and some silt and gravel is located below the 1 metre level. The water table is encountered
at depths between 0.8 and 0.9 metres below existing ground surface. On this basis, the report indicates
that individual septic systems can be constructed on the property. However, some of the beds wm need to
be partially to fully raised. The report further suggests that about 20 lots could be developed on the
property.
..
The lots have been designed and located so as to be located on the top of a significant bluff that slopes
downwards towards the property's southern boundary. As a result, many of the homes wm have attractive
views of the surrounding rural area. The southern two-thirds of the property is not proposed to be
developed and is instead proposed to be incorporated within one of the proposed new lots. No parkland is
proposed to be dedicated to the Township as part of the proposal. This means that cash-in-lieu of. parkland
wm be required.
DESIGN ISSUES:
It is proposed that 8 lots (Lots 15 to 22) back onto Moonstone Road. While this lot configuration provides a
much safer means of access to the dwellings, the location of reverse frontage lots in a settlement area can
be less than attractive. As a result, it is suggested that lots 21 and 22 be re-oriented so that at least one of
the lots flanks onto Moonstone Road rather than backs onto it. With the remainder of the reverse frontage
lots, it is recommended that a 3.0 metre wide landscaping strip in conjunction with appropriate fencing be
established to improve the aesthetics of the development. The treatment of reverse frontage lots in this
manner is becoming more popular as development occurs in Simcoe County.
, WATER SUPPLY ISSUES:
I
The Moonstone Settlement Area is serviced by the Robincrest water system. The system is, currently
designed to service 26 existing lots, 81 lots within the Robincrest subdivision, 100 lots in the Bachly
subdivision, the Moonstone Public School and the Fire Hall. The system is serviced by two wells and two
reservoirs.
On the basis of a review of the proposal by R.G. Robinson and Associates, it is clear that additional works
will be required to facilitate development on the Thatcher property. The R.G. Robinson review is attached.
These works include drilling a new well and expansion of one of the existing reservoirs. The estimated cost
- 2-
b
~. S
of this work is approximately $320,000.00. It should be noted that these works would be required to
facilitate any amount of development on the property. Given that these upgrades are required for the
Thatcher property, it is recommended that the costs of providing this additional storage be the responsibility
of the proponent. This wm translate into a cost of $14,500.00 per lot. Given this cost, it is recommended
that all cost sharing options be investigated in the planning and design of these upgrades, particularly since
there is one other large property in the settlement (Robinson) that may benefit from these upgrades.
AL YSIS:
On the basis of the Township's position regarding development in Moonstone and ongoing discussions with
the proponent, an application to subdivide the property into 22 lots has. been submitted. As it is the intent of
the Township and the Township's Official Plan to encourage the additional d~velopment of settlements in a
manner that is efficient and compact, the proposed development generally conforms.
",:'
On the basis of the above, Planning Advisory Committee has three options:
Option 1 - Proceed to a Public Meeting
, '
If this option was selected, Planning Advisory Committee would recommend to Council that a public
meeting on the application for Plan of Subdivision be held.
Option 2 - Require Additional Information
If this option was selected, Planning Advisory Committee would require the proponent to submit additional
information to the municipality before any further processing of the application and a public, meeting is held.
Option 3 - Refuse the Application
If this option was selected, Planning Advisory Committee would recommend to Council that the application
for Plan of Subdivision be refused.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
On the basis of the work completed by the applicant and the analysis carried out in this report, it is
recommended that Planning Advisory Committee select Option 1. It is our opinion that there is enough
information available in conjunction with the application for the public to generally understand the nature of
the proposal at a formal public meeting. It is recognized that additional work wm be required to support the
draft approval of the property (such as an up to date Storm Management Report and an up to date
hydrogeological assessment), however, we believe that enough work on those two items has already been
completed.
- 3-
6c-4--
. On this basis, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee:
.
Receive and adopt this report; and,
Recommend to Council that Development Application 2004-SUB-02 for a proposed Plan of
Subdivision submitted by Greg and Judi Thatcher proceed to a public meeting in accordance with
Section 51 of The Planning Act. '
.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
" '
",,"
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
Partner
,,¡1~\'
..
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
','
,.,::,'
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
',1i,,', '
- 4-
n
RECEIVED
J
:)
MAY 1 2 200'
ORO-MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
c
0
N
c
LOT
LOT
1 5
16
E
s
s
0
N
9
co U N oT-'y - ORIGIÑAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS- 15AND 16 R 0 AD\ N -;;- - ..J19 J- ~m-;e:-:ve- - - - - - - - - --
25mB~~~~~denin9~-=_þ-~~ :.~--::-:=A~- :._~ '~:. --::W~-'- ~::~~' -~ ~=.~~k :M_O~ ~ ~ ~O N E - R O~~
Sf"""') 026< -
f XI:, IIN"
"I.SIOI.NII^L
!
\I
~
-51-0:
- "l~
p
----
PARKLAND
//
V
.
8
~I-
" tl
Z i?
0
Z
~
~ 15
19
20
21
16
17
18
14
~J
'J
U
,,~,
,,~
1 ,I)
I)
()
~
.
Ii!
~~
~~
.
".---'
'8'."'(0<'"
'8',"'("
~
POSf
'8'"
""'20""-'
'08,'" 01.0
O,oinoge Easement
.",,',,-,
VACANT
~
""
'"
22
"'!~
;1;
')
1
"
.',
"$
,
1,
;1
!
(j
VACANT
- --- ,- ~- -, ~ ~ - - ,,'
~
~~
w rg~
"~
~
w
..
'~8
. t~~
~ ~~
I
~
0
",...
,,~,.~
M"
"""
DRAFT PLAN OF
PROPOSED SUBDMSION
PART OF LOT 15, CONCESSION 9
TOWN OF MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
""'-""""'" "c""","""_œ"""",,,",
""""""""""""""""'",""",""""""""",,,m,
m"""""","""""""""""""""""""m..."",
""","n"""""""œ__"""""",...
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
"""""""""""","""""œ""""",,"..
""""""""""',"""~_m""""""""",,,
"""""""""""""""""""$~
~',""ONCMAN'.."""."m,
....".,..............
"""'..1"""'-
AoomONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER
SECTION S1(17) OF TIlE PLANNING ACT
.~~..-
.~~n-
,_'œ~
"-~-~
ro"~
.~~
M"""._-
._œ~
..-~~
._œ~
.-
._œ~
,_œ~
.-œ~
SfATIsna;
..............,"""""",
-,.
::::"'"
~"'="'"
=:""""'"
'~.~:"":-"-~-
"""-,~
"""'"
~'~""""ON_""""""~"",,
CAN"""""""","~"OMP""',-
PAGE 1/ ~
6c. ~b
RG RoBINSON
!
4 FILE No.595 06/10 '04 15:42
.
ID:R. G. ROBINSON AND ASSOC FAX:705734 0764
",
~
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
AND
PLANNERS
a
AND ASSOCIATES (BAk'kf£) L TD
Mr. K. Mathieson
Director of Engineering and Planning
Township ofOro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
R.R.#1
Oro Station. ON LOL 2XO
"By Fax & Mail"
June 10,2004
",\'
Dear Mr. Mathieson:
Re:
Township of Oro-MedoDte Moonstone
Water System Uperades and Costs
, '
R. G. Robinson and Associates (Barrie) Ltd. (RGM) has been retained by. the Township of
Oro-Medonte to prepare a technical and cost evaluation of the upgraded central water system in
the Hamlet of Moonstone to determine the improvements and costs associated to service
proposed future development. To some extent this report is an update of a previous water
system report - Capacity Evaluation- prepared by RGRA in January 2004.
A review of the Township of Oro-Medonte, Robincrest Water System Certificate,pf Approval,
Permit to Take Water and hydraulic analysis with regard to the water demand imposed by the
possible addition of the Thatcher Subdivision produces the following:
The maximum water taking as stated in the existing Permit to Take Water, provides for a firm ,
capacity of 180 m3 per day, compared to the calculated demand for the proposed development at
242.5 m3 per day. The Ministry of the Environment Guidelines prefers that the firm wen
capacity, meets or exceeds the Maximum Day Demand which in this case is 666.0 m3/~y.
Peale. day demand imposed on the high tift pumps by the existing serviced area is 10.3 LIs with a
firm capacity of 8.83 Us. With the addition of the new Lots in the proposed Thatcher
Subdivision this revises the Peak Day to 11.29 LIs. The firm capacity of the existing system
can only meet the Peak Hour Demand by reducing the discharge pressure at the expense of
system pressure.
Total storage provided by the two reservoirs is 447 m). Available firm storage capacity is 180
m3. Total storage required for the existing system and for the proposed system is 528 m3 and
550.4m3 respectively.
10 High SlTeet, Barrie. Ontario UN IWI (705) 721.9222 Fax (705) 734-0764 engp!an@rgTa.on,ca
@)
6c-~
.
As noted above., the existing water system does not meet the MOE guidelines for the rum
capacity of source of water, high lift pumping and storage. The existing water system currently
meets the requirements of O.R. 170 and presents no safety or health risks. There is a deficiency
in the flI'Dl capacity as it relates to providing redundancy in the event that either a well, high lift
pump or reservoir is out of service for maintenance or mechanical failure. There is potential for
a deficiency in the high lift pump capacity during high demand periods designated as maximum
day flow or peak hour flow rates.
The rust consideration for implementing any potential upgrades is compliance with the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment of June 2000. Adding a backup well to provide
firm capacity is a Schedule 'A' undertaking. Upgrades in high lift pumping capacitY within
the exiSting building is a Schedule' A' project. The expansion to a water reservoir for
additional capacity is a Schedule "B" undertaking.
~
"
:::'
Phase ODe:
It is therefore recommended that the first series of upgrades be limited to providing turn wen
capacity and revising the high lift pump capacity and control strategy.
Phase Two:
If it is deemed necessary that a Class EA Schedule 'BI! must be initiàted for sto~ge capacity
upgrades. ' '
Phase ODe ReQuired UP2n\des - Cost Estimate
1. Update hydro2eolo~ical Report for Wells $5.000
2. New Design Brief for Applications (PTTW and
Amend C of A $5,000
3. Drill new well No.4 $80,000
4. Upsize existin~ pumps with VFD . $30,000
5. Mechanical and El~trical $20,000
6. Contract Prepa.mtion, Administration and
Inspection $5,000
7. Contin!!encv $10,000
Total $155,000.00
Phase Two Required Uperades - Cost Estimate
1. Schedule 'B' Environmental Assessment $10,000
2. Design and for Application and Amend C of A
$10.000
3. Reservoir Expansion $100,000
4. Site work. $10,000
S. Mechanical and Electrical $20.000
6. Contract, Administration and Inspection
$5,000
7. Contin~ency $10,000
Total $165,000.00
2
. FILE.No.595 06/10 '04 15:42
ID:R. G. ROBINSON AND ASSOC FAX:705 734 0764
PAGE
6c-2-
We truSt this letter report meets the requirements of the scope of work to determine the cost of
construction of the Phase One and Phase Two water plant upgrades.
If you require any information, please contact the undersigned or our office.
Yours truly
R. G. ROBINSON AND ASSOCIATES (BARRIE) LTD.
~
R. Groves
Senior Project Manager
\:'
File No. 12-04001-10
RFGO2
". '
3
3/ 3
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
PD2004-26 Committee Nick McDonald, RPP
and Jamie Robinson
"
Subject: Moon Point Department: ,,\'
Development Planning
Applications
Council 2004-0PA-02, 2004-
ZBA-09, 2004-SUB-01
C. of Concession 3, West Date: June 03, 2004
W. Part of Lots 15 & 16
(Orillia)
Motion A.M. File #:
:# D12 013640
Date: Roll :#:
030-012-42700
"
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to assess the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment
and Plan of Subdivision applications submitted by the Jones Consulting Group Ltd. on behalf of
the applicants, the Moon Point Corporation. The intent of the applications is to permit the
development of an 18 lot residential Plan of Subdivision, a copy of which is attached as Appendix
1. This report will assess the application and provide recommendations to the Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) on how to proceed with the application.
The application applies to lands legally described as Part Lot 15 and 16, Concession 3, and part
of the Road Allowance between Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3 (as closed by Township of Orillia
By-Law No. 1284, Inst. No. NSO14786, confirmed by County of Simcoe By-law No. 1901, Inst.
No. NSO14787, and approved by order in Council Dated July 30, 1935, Inst. No. NSO14788),
Geographic Township of Ori/lia Southern Division, in the Township of Oro-Medonte, County of
Simcoe. The intent of the proposed Official Plan Amendment.. is to redesignate the lands to
"Shoreline" with an exception. The exception would be to recognize that 4 of the proposed 18
lots do not have direct frontage or direct access to lake Simcoe. The intent of the proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment is to rezone the lands as "Shoreline Residential Exception." The
exception is to permit a reduced minimum lot frontage of 20 metres where. the Zoning By-law
requires 30 metres.
1
- I .
b~-2
In addition to the above applications, the proposal requests that the existing camp lands be given
a zoning exception to permit a "Private Park." Currently, the camp is a legal non-conforming use
and an exception would recognize the use in the By-law
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND ADJACENT LAND USES
The subject lands are located on the shore of Lake Simcoe approximately 600 metres southeast
of the City of Orillia municipal boundary. Figure 1 in the Planning Report submitted byThe Jones
Consulting Group (attached) shows the location of the 25.01 ha (61.8 acre) property.
The existing property has approximately 800 metres of shoreline frontage and 670 metres of
frontage on Moon Point Drive. ' \:'
The proposed Plan of Subdivision is located on the eastern portion of the property and occupies
11.37 hectares with approximately 675 metres of shoreline frontage and 289 metres of frontage
on Moon Point Drive. These lands are currently vacant and comprised primarily of deciduous
vegetation. In terms of slope, the lands proposed for development slope from west to east with
the highest elevation located at the intersection of Moon Point Drive and the proposed western lot
line. The total elevation change across the site is approximately 11 metres.
, '
The retained parcel would occupy 13.64 hectares on the western portion of the site and would
continue to be used as the Knights of Columbus Camp.
The proposed Plan of Subdivision is surrounded by the following land uses:
.
North - Lake Simcoe and the City of Orillia
West - the existing camp which is comprised of a dining hall, change rooms~. cabins,
lodge and equipment sheds ' '
South - forested areas, isolated pockets of field crops and shoreline residential lots
along the shore of Lake Simcoe
East - Lake Simcoe
.
.
.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
It is proposed to develop 18 residential lots to be accessed by internal roads which connect to
Moon Point Road. The proposed public road will be T -shaped with a cul-de-sac at each
termination. The design shows 14 lots with frontage on Lake Simcoe and 4 lots developed as
backlots.
The proposed lots with frontage on Lake Simcoe have varying street frontages ranging from 20 to
26 metres. The proposed shoreline frontages range from 47 to 61 metres. The internal lots have
much greater frontages. In terms of lot size, there is a large variance as lot sizes range from 0.41
to 0.76 hectares. Lots will be privately serviced by well and septic systems and according to the
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Greenland Consulting Engineers, stormwater will
be conveyed to Lake Simcoe by drainage ditches and swales.
2
6d-)
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS
A number of technical reports have been submitted in support of the applications. A brief
description of each is below.
Planning Report - Prepared by Jones Consulting Group
The following key points are made in the Planning Report:
.
The proposed development represents an appropriate shoreline infill development
entirely consistent with the existing lot pattern to the south.
.
All water lots exceed 45 metres of frontage on lake Simcoe.
,,:'
','
.
The proposal also requests the retained parcel be given a zoning exception to permit a
Private Park.
.
A watercourse has been incorrectly located on the subject lands and the "Environmental
Protection" zoning should be removed.
Environmental Impact Statement & SWM and Natural Heritage ~t.udy -
Prepared by Greenland Consulting Engineers
The purpose of this report and the associated appendices is to identify the effect the proposed
development might have on the natural environment within and surrounding the site. The
documents also make.conclusions regarding the preservation of natural landscapes and how
stormwater can most effectively be accommodated on site. Below are the main conclusions from
the report.
" '
", '
.
The property can be developed without significant negative impacts on the features and
functions of the property by using mitigation measures to control impacts.
.
Native Vegetation within 20 metres of the shoreline should not be removed.
.
Site specific vegetation preservation plans should be established for each lot as part of
the building permit process.
.
Discussions with the lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority (lSRCA) indicated
that some filling of the shoreline floodplain would be considered provided a reasonable
set-back from the shoreline is provided.
.
The EIS must evaluate the placement of fill to ensure that there will be no significant
impacts associated with the loss of vegetation.
.
Septic systems must be located above the flood proofing elevation.
.
Groundwater on the site is approximately 1 metre or less below the surface.
3
8
ANAL YSIS
6 J\- 4-
Stormwater quantity control is not required for the property due to its proximity to lake
Simcoe. .
8
Internal post development drainage will be achieved by road ditches and lot swales in
accordance with Township design standards. All internal drainage will be designed to
convey 100-year design storms.
8
Stormwater quality control and lake Simcoe water quality protection will be achieved
through reduced lot grading, reduced slopes on lot drainage swales and a combination of
mildly sloping road ditches with pervious pipe underdrains to remove suspended solids
and promote infiltration.
Rural Servicing Study - Prepared by Rural Development Consultants Limited
The Rural Servicing Report addresses the feasibility of the development of the 11.1 hectare site
on private well and septic systems. The following are the main conclusions of the report:
8
A test well program will be required to demonstrate adequate water quantity and quality
to satisfy Ministry of Environment Guidelines.
8
Soil and water table level are not suitable to support the construction of in-ground
leaching beds. Raised tile fields may be constructed on the property.
8
No significant surface water quality impacts are anticipated.
8'
On-site stormwater management will be provided via conveyance treatment in roadside
ditches. In addition, soakaway pits for discharge from roof leaders will be constructed on
a lot by lot basis.
Oro-Medonte Official Plan
The subject lands are designated Restricted Rural in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan.
proposed that the lands be designated Shoreline.
it is
The vision of the Official Plan recognizes that the Township's open, relatively natural and rural
character is the quality that residents value most about their community. Section A2.3 of the
Official Plan states that one of the primary principles of. the Plan is to consolidate rurai
development in existing settlement areas to protect the character of rural areas. In addition, it
adds, "to ensure that there is a clear spatial delineation between the Barrie and Orillia urban
areas and the rural and agricultural area of Oro-Medonte, new development adjacent to either
City shall be restricted to agricultural and agriculturally~related uses. "
Although the proposed residential development is located close the Oro-Medonte/City of Orillia
border, the two areas would most likely never be joined by residential development. To the
northeast of the property are low, swampy lands that are unsuited for development. The
presence of these lowlands within the City of Orillia will ensure that a clear spatial delineation is
maintained between the built form of Orillia and Oro-Medonte.
4
6cv\-~
The proposed development, if approved, would not conform to Section 010.3.8 of the current
Official Plan (Limits of Shoreline Development.) This section of the Official Plan states; ,
It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline
area be directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this
Plan in an effort to maintain this area's unique character...Any
Amendment to this Plan that has the effect of permitting
additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline
designation will only be considered as part of a review of the
appropriateness of the extent and limits of the entire Shoreline
designation that is carried out as part of an Official Plan review.
v'
"
The existing policy regarding shoreline development is very restrictive, as it does not pi'mit any
development in the Shoreline designation without a review of the entire Shoreline designation.
OPA #17 proposes to change the policy regarding development in shoreline areas to read as
, follows.
It is the. intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline
area be directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this
Plan in an effort to maintain this area's unique character. In
order to implement this intent, new residential development in
the Shoreline designation will be limited to small-scale
subdivisions on the shoreline or minor infilling by consent to
sever. Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of
permitting additional residential development adjacent to the
Shoreline designation will be discouraged. If such an application
is submitted, the appropriateness of the immediate area for
development from an environmental, servicing, character and
traffic perspective shall be assessed. If major development is
proposed, a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shall be
carried out to ,determine if the proposed location is suitable and
appropriate from a growth management perspective.
."', "
:~, :'
The policy in the Official Plan was slightly revised by OPA #17, because there are logical
locations for additional small-scale development in the shoreline area. However, the proposed
policy also stresses that a number of issues have to be reviewed to determine the suitability of a
redesignation.
When the existing Official Plan was prepared, only developed lands were designated Shoreline.
As a result, the subject property was not designated Shoreline even though it is located on the
shoreline.
The proposed Plan of Subdivision shows 4 lots to be developed as 'back lots.' Section 10.3.6 of,
the Official Plan states that "new Plans of Subdivisions shall only be considered by Council if all
lots within the plan are to have frontage and direct access to the shorelines of Lake Simcoe or
Bass Lake. "This policy has also been carried forward into the new Official Plan.
5
60\-(;
The intent of this policy is to discourage development in the shoreline area where residents will
not have access to the Lake. In the case of the proposed development, the 4 inland lots can gain
access to the Lake Simcoe via the unopened Concession 3 road allowance and the 3.5 metre
walkway between Lots 1 and 18 of the Plan. As a result, it is our opinion that sufficient access
can be obtained for the 4 inland lots. However, it is suggested that the access to the lake in this
location be improved as a condition of development. Consideration could also be given to
acquiring 5% parkland adjacent to the lake access to improve the usability of the water access.
In addition to the requirement for water access, Section D10.3.6 of the Official Plan also cQntains
the following criteria.
Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of
Subdivision that contains lots that have direct access' to and
frontage on either lake Simcoe or Bass Lake, Council shall be
satisfied that:
(a)
(b)
\:'
The proposed Plan of Subdivision is of scale and density
that is compatible with existing development in the area;
The proposed form of servicing is appropriate and
agreed to by the Township and the appropriate
agencies;
(c)
Measures to preserve the integrity of the shoreline and
the tree cover on the site are included within the
Subdivision Agreement and the implementing Zoning
. By-law; and,
". '
(d)
Parkland areas are sited at appropriate location to
provide access to the shoreline. These parkland areas
should be sited adjacent to existing road allowances
leading to the lake.
With respect to (a) above, it is our opinion that the large lots and their location is generally
compatible with the scale and density of existing development. In terms of (b) above, the Official
Plan requires that all servicing options be reviewed when applications to develop more than 5
new lots are proposed. In this case, given the small size of the development, its location and size
of the lots, the only appropriate means of servicing is by private wells and septic system. With
respect to (c) above, the Draft Conditions, if approved, will require the submission of detailed
plans that are designed to minimize tree loss on the site. Lastly, in regard to (d), the location of
new parkland adjacent to the road allowance could be considered in this case to enhance the
'public realm" in this area.
County of Simcoe Official Plan
The subject property is designated as Rural and Agriculture in the County Official Plan. Two of
the goals of the County of Simcoe Official Plan are particularly relevant to the proposed
development. The first is to protect, conserve, and enhance the County's natural and cultural
heritage. The second is to manage growth to achieve lifestyle quality and efficient and cost-
6
b oJ - ì"
effective municipal servicing, development and land use. Both of these goals promote
development in existing settlement areas and away from rural areas of the County.
Part 3 of the Official Plan deals with the Growth Management Strategy that the County has
adopted to direct development over the next twenty years. Policy 3.1.1 states that development
will be directed to existing settlement areas.
The proposed development conforms with Section 3.6.7 of the County Official Plan, which deals
with country residential subdivisions. Country residential subdivisions are permitted under this
policy within the Rural and Agricultural designation, provided that they have no more than AO lots
and are located at least one concession block from other country residential developm~nt. It is
our opinion that the intent of this policy is to deal with estate development in the rural area and is
not intended to apply to the shoreline since the shoreline is a continuous band of development. If
this policy were to apply to the shoreline then in theory, not even one lot could be G,(ë'atedin
accordance with this policy.
Section 3.6.12 of the County Official Plan states,
The land use policies for prime agricultural area shall apply to
land within one kilometre of an adjacent municipality's settlement
area except where designated Settlement areas exist adjacent to
one another or where the affected municipalities have
determined and mutually agreed upon long term future
expansion plans and servicing arrangements. In certain
circumstances, the existence of natural or man made boundaries
can be considered justification for increase or decrease in that
one kilometre distance. Development, including lot creation, is
discouraged adjacent or in close proximity to settlement area
boundaries in order to enable the efficient expansion of
settlement areas.
"
,'" '
" , '
",
The intent of this policy is to prevent continuous development between the City of Orillia and Oro-
Medonte. This form of development presents a number of planning challenges including the
allocation of servicing. As noted previously, the proposed development is separated from the City
boundary by a wetland and a low-lying area, which is located to the north and east of the subject
property. It is because of this feature that development between Orillia andOro-Medonte would
most likely never be continuous.
Zoning By-law
The Shoreline Residential Zone requires minimum lot frontages of 30 metres. Thirteen of the
proposed 18 lots have frontages that are less than 30 metres. The proposed lots with 'lake
frontage' are pie-shaped, which results in greater frontages on lake Simcoe (Figure 2). As
previously mentioned, frontage on lake Simcoe range from 47 metres to 61 metres. The large
'lake-frontages' and lot areas of the development help to offset the lot frontages that are
undersized.
In terms of lot sizes, lots in the proposed development satisfy the minimum lot size requirement of
0.2 hectares.
7
b cÁ- ~
SITE VISIT
The site visit revealed the presence of a small dra.inage course on the property. However, this
feature appears only to drain surface flows on the property. Overland flows displaced by the
drainage course could be accommodated through site design. It is also our conclusion that this
feature should not be designated Environmental Protection in By-law 97-95.
The site visit revealed that boathouse development would not be suited for the property.
Extending from the property, the lake bottom appears to be very shallow for some distance. In
order for boathouses to be feasible, dredging would be required. "
PRIVATE PARK
\\'
\:.
It is also proposed to recognize the Knights of Columbus Boys Camp as a private park in the
Township's Zoning By-law. At the present time, this use is considered to be a legal non-
conforming use. It is our opinion that there is merit in considering this request since any
expansion, in terms of new buildings or structures or additions would require approval from the
Committee of Adjustment. '
Further consideration of this request will be made following the public meeting to determine what
level of approval should be given in the zoning by-law. Options include providing thè:âbility to
expand as-of-right through the zoning by-law or requiring a re-zoning to facilitate any
development.
AGENCY COMMENTS
County of Simcoe
" '
" '
Comments were not received when this report was written.
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Comments were not received when this report was written.
City of Orillia
The City has indicated that they have no concerns with the proposed development.
Simcoe County District School Board
The Simcoe County District School Board has indicated that they have no concerns with the
proposed development. Any students from the development will be bussed to Harriet Todd
Public School and Twin lakes Secondary School.
8
6oA- ~
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board
The Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School board has indicated that the proposed
development is located within the catchment area for Notre Dame Catholic Elementary School
and Patrick Fogarty High School. It should be noted that Notre Dame has a current rated
capacity of 420 students and a current enrolment of 454,
As a result of high enrolment, the Board has requested that the following as a condition of Draft
Plan Approval.
That the owner include in all offers of purchase a sale clause
advising prospective purchasers that pupils from this
development attending educational facilities operated by the
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District' School Board may be
transported to / accommodated in temporary facilities our of the
neighbourhood school's area.
\:'
R.G. Robinson and Associates, Oro-Medonte Engineering Consultant
Comments were not received when this report was written.
Oro-Medonte Staff Comments
The only staff concern was raised from the Clerk, Marilyn Pennycook. Her concern was in
regards to the ownership of the walkway and who is responsible for its maintenance.
OPTIONS
", '
On the basis of this report, Council has two options.
Option One - Proceed to a Public Meeting
If this option was selected, the application would be further processed and a public meeting under
the Planning Act would be held. Following the public meeting, Planning Advisory Committee will
then have an opportunity to determine whether the application should be approved or not
approved. Given that the circulation of the application is almost complete, a public meeting could
be held on July 19, 2004.
Option Two - Require Further Information
If this option was selected, additional information would be required from the applicant before a
public meeting could be held. One outstanding item is the need for parkland in this area and
whether parkland should be taken from this site.
Option Two - Refuse the Application
If this option were selected, Council would refuse the applications for Official Plan Amendment,
Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision on the basis that it does not conform with the
intent of the Official Plan and does not represent good planning practice. If this option were
9
6 0\ - \c
selected, the applicant would then have the ability to appeal Council's decision to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed development is generally consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Official Plan. In addition, the proposed development is at a scale and
density that is comparable to existing development. It is on this basis that it is recommended that
Option 1 be selected.
It is recognized that the parkland issue remains outstanding. In this regard, it is recommended
that, at the public meeting, parkland options be identified and public input sdught.
',,:' ,
As a result, it is recommended that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that:
1)
2)
this report be received and adopted; and,
applicatiQns submitted by Moon Point Development for Official Plan and Zoning
By-law Amendments and Plan of Subdivision proceed to a public meeting under
The Planning Act. '
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
~
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
Partner
" '
" '
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
10
FI CURE 1
rJ:J
~
~
¡..oJ
~
u
Q)
.,....,
~
w
0
U
2
(f)
-+---=-
w
:::{
«
..J
z
<
s:
z
0
~
<
U
0
....J
~
z
d I rJ
III ~
f I '-D
d
..
II
d
d
II
d
d
d
18
II
.
II
II
.
II
'NO"" SNORE",", O'.EN",,"S 'OR
..",orR,,"' '0'5 ARE APCRO".^" ,""cY,
,
~
'I'
,~
\,
:.
RE"'NEO ,_OS a-EO BV ACC""N'
(E""ONO CA.C 'KN,""" '" CCo.UUBuS')
, .
, "
¡ ¡
..nul
LAKE SIMCOE
I
'/
';
....
h
ii.
I
ROAD ALLOWANC' en""N "lÒTŠ~5 AND 16, CONC(5"'ON
O"~¡SERVE
.OON c.;',~~';;',,~ -L ,/ RE'¡£;.~EO I
/ /. NO. 000/
rl\.JUl\C t.
t
DRAFT PLAN OF
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
PART OF LOTS 15 AND 16, CONCESSION 3
""",Aa".""
ROAD ALLOWANCE BElWEEN
LOTS 15 AND 16. CONC£5SION 3
c""""""""""""""
ORILLIA SOUTIIERN DIVISION
TOWNSH1P OF ORO-MEOONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
OWN"""""""""
,""-""""'" """"""""""""""
"""",,""""'N""OVA""""""""""""""""""'"
",""""n",,""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""ronŒ""""""""""""""""""""""'"
""""""""""""""row
"",mea"""""'"
"""""""""Œ"",",,"""""""W<œroK
"""""""'-"""'~""""""""""""^"'"
""A"""'m.V-""",,",""OOWW'
I,O,ANN~"""U
""""'Ao.o""",...amro.
ON"""""""-
-""""'.
ADDmONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER
SECTIDN 51(17) Of THE PLANNING Acr
.-~~
N-~~
.--~
.-
K-~~
,-~~
.-~~
N----~
,-~_._-
_~n~.-
,-~~
N-
O-
!!ó!!!!JQ
"",,"'ATI"""""'"
(OmS""
wAU<WAV~"""""
,~"""V"""""'~'"
"",œ
"""".."
""A~W<œOWNroOV"""",,",
œœ...
~...
,m...
""...
"....
..~.
.....
",,""~AOON_"
""'~Ao.o,C'A""""'mo'
""'A"'~"","""","",
""'"
;;;;;-~.OOWNDNnm"""'U'~"""D"""
CN<""'N"",wro'movo~<NCß'-
~, .""".'" ..,--,~ "';"
lfÀ. - \
."
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
MEMORANDUM
To:
Planning Advisory.Committee
cc:
Jennifer Zieleniewski, C.A.O.
From:
Nick McDonald, RPP
R.M. File #:
Date:
June 9, 2004
Roll #:
Subject: Draft Provincial Policy Statement
On June 1 st, 2004, the Province of Ontario released a Draft Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). In addition, the
Province also released a Discussion Paper on Planning Act Reform and Ontario Municipal Board Reform. The
intent of this report is to review the major policy changes proposed within the draft PPS.
With the release of the draft PPS and the other discussion papers referenced above, it is clear that the
Province is planning on taking. a much more proactive role in land use planning, particularly in Southern
Ontario. In addition to these policy changes, the Province has also indicated that they will be preparing a
Growth Management Plan for Central Ontario, which includes the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and potentially
South Simcoe. The South Simcoe area may be included because there are a number of development
proposals in the area which are intended to attract some of the 3.5 million new residents expected in Central
Ontario.
Essentially, the Province has recognized that, as a result of the historical absence of Provincial leadership with
respect togrowth, a coordinated and comprehensive approach to managing growth in Central Ontario is now
required. The intent of this comprehensive approach is to ensure the growth occurs in the right locations and
has minimal impacts on agricultural land and environmental features. In addition, a major focus of the strategy
will be to ensure that the quality of life of existing residents is maintained or enhanced and that new
communities that foster a high quality of life are developed in the future.
At the present time, planning authorities only have to have 'regard to' the Provincial Policy Statement. Through
amendments to The Planning Act in Bill 26, it is now proposed to require planning authorities to ensure that
their decisions 'are consistent with' Provincial policy.
With respect to the Draft Provincial Policy Statement, below is a summary of those policies that are being
amended, as they relate specifically to the Township of Oro-Medonte:
1. The draft PPS continues to direct growth to settlement areas. However, the draft PPS requires that
municipalities look first at their existing growth areas to determine whether intensification and
redevelopment can occur in these areas before considering the outward expansion of any settlement area.
-¡~-2
, 2. The alteration of the boundary of any settlement area can only occur when a comprehensive review (which
is defined as an Official Plan Review) is carried out. The determination of land requirements is required to
be based on and reflect upper-tier projections and Provincial Land Use Plans: This means that any Official
Plan Review exercise that looks at settlement area boundaries in Oro-Medonte will have to conform with
the County of Simcoe Official Plan and a Provincial Land Use Plan, if one exists for the area.
3. Planning authorities will be required to undertake comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning for
rural areas to ensure that Provincial interests are protected. These Provincial interests include the
protection of prime agricultural land, the protection of natural heritage features and the protection of land
for future aggregate extraction. To a large extent, the Township has already done this by adopting
OPA#16.
, ,
4. The draft PPS expects that upper-tier levels of government will:
" "
.
"
Identify priority growth areas and coordinate and allocate population, housing"andemployment;
Identify targets for intensification and redevelopment within alliower:-tier munlCipalities;
Identify minimum densities for transit corridors; and,
Identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities within their jurisdictiQn for
matters that cross municipal boundaries. '
.
.
.
This proposed policy makes it clear that it will be the role of the County of Simcoe to determine where
growth wm occur in the future.
'! '.
5. There are a number of new policies regarding the protection, improvement or restoration of the quality and
quantity of water in the Province. Components of the policy include:
.
Utilizing watershed boundaries for planning purposes;
Identifying surface and groundwater.. features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage
features in areas necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of a watershed; and,
Maintaining linkages and related functions between surface and groundwater features,
hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas.
.
.
To a large extent, the OPA #16 process has already accomplished this objective.
6. Within prime agricultural areas, lots for bona fide farmers and infilling lots are no longer permitted.
7. With respect to mineral aggregates, a new policy has been included which indicates that the consideration
of need for mineral aggregate resources is not a planning issue and should not be considered when
reviewing an application for an extraction operation.
The above represents a brief summary of some of the major changes proposed in the draft PPS. Anyone
wishing to comment on the draft document has until August 31st, 2004 to do so.
Respectfully Submitted,
~ -t:uL
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
Partner
- 2-
,,:'